Chapter i  Fair Trial Standards: Scope of Application 25 the ECHR. In Öztürk v Germany, the Court explained: “if the Contracting States were able at their discretion, by classifying an offence as ‘regulatory’ instead of criminal, to exclude the operation of the fundamental clauses of articles 6 and 7 the application of these provisions would be subordinated to their sovereign will. A latitude extending thus far might lead to results incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.”36 Similarly, in Weber v Switzerland, the Court said that: “While recognising the right of States to distinguish between criminal law and disciplinary law, the European Court has reserved the power to satisfy itself that the line drawn between these does not prejudice the object and purpose of article 6”.37 In the abovementioned leading case of Öztürk v Germany, the European Court additionally recognized the advantages of the moves towards decriminalization. By removing certain forms of conduct from the category of criminal offences, the lawmaker may be able to serve the interests of the individual as well as the needs of the proper administration of justice, in particular in so far as the domestic authorities are thereby relieved of the task of prosecuting and punishing contraventions – which are numerous but of minor importance.38 However, the classification provided by the domestic law will not prevent the European Court from looking at the substantive nature of the offence. 1.1.2 Nature of the offence The second factor relevant to determining whether or not a proceeding is criminal concerns the nature of the offence with which the person has been charged. This is an issue that normally arises when considering disciplinary proceedings versus criminal proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights has described disciplinary proceedings as “generally designed to ensure that the members of particular groups comply with the specific rules governing their conduct”.39 It has also noted that disciplinary proceedings usually offer substantial advantages in comparison to criminal proceedings, including the potential or actual sentences passed, in general less severe, the fact that disciplinary sentences do not appear on a person’s criminal record and entail more limited consequences, and that criminal proceedings are ordinarily accompanied by fuller guarantees.40 A similar approach is followed by the European Court in the area of tax-related offences. In Bendenoun v France, for instance, the provision at stake applies to all citizens in their capacity as taxpayers, and not a given group with a particular status. This aspect, together with the prominent deterrent purpose of the provision in question (See also 1.1.3), prompted the Court to qualify the provision as a “criminal” one.41 36 Öztürk v Germany [1984] ECHR, para 49. 37 Weber v Switzerland [1990] ECHR 13, para 30. 38 Öztürk v Germany [1984] ECHR, para 49. 39 Weber v Switzerland [1990] ECHR 13, para 33. 40 Engel and Others v the Netherlands [1976] ECHR 3, para 80. 41 Bendenoun v France [1994] ECHR 7, para 47.